You And I do not disagree. Because I have a certain amount of reverence for and confidence in the Sangha generally, I tend to take it for granted that the teachings of Abhidhamma are for the purpose of diminishing and ending suffering and not for establishing philosophical arguments. This conclusion does not arise out of intense study even though I do enjoy a good Dhamma book from time to time. Gabe

not for establishing philosophical arguments On the other hand it is worthwhile having some idea of what the teachings are actually saying, and it is worthwhile to respond to a gross misrepresentation of the Theravada idea of dhammas we are seeing in 5heap's msgs. The Mahayana/Madhyamaka critique of the ideas of dharmas as being ultimate partless particles with findable true existence does not really address what is found in the Theravadin texts.

The various Tibetan scholastic tenet systems developed by the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism serves a didactic purpose for those schools, but it is not a solid basis for understanding any extinct or extant school of Buddhism outside the one putting forth the tenet sustem.

Hi Tilt,

Again I agree with your statements. I am not a fan of that particular didactic paradigm even though it appears to me to have been quite effective for many.

Metta

Gabe

"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

not sure who said this but... wrote: The Mahayana/Madhyamaka critique of the ideas of dharmas as being ultimate partless particles with findable true existence does not really address what is found in the Theravadin texts.

Is Shantideva a valid Theravadin text? I may be reading him wrong, but he seems to shred the bolded concepts pretty thoroughly.

not sure who said this but... wrote: The Mahayana/Madhyamaka critique of the ideas of dharmas as being ultimate partless particles with findable true existence does not really address what is found in the Theravadin texts.

Is Shantideva a valid Theravadin text? I may be reading him wrong, but he seems to shred the bolded concepts pretty thoroughly.

Shantideva is a person, not a text so no

but it would still be no, I believe he was mahasangha not Theravadin.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

not sure who said this but... wrote: The Mahayana/Madhyamaka critique of the ideas of dharmas as being ultimate partless particles with findable true existence does not really address what is found in the Theravadin texts.

Is Shantideva a valid Theravadin text? I may be reading him wrong, but he seems to shred the bolded concepts pretty thoroughly.

Shantideva is a person, not a text so no

but it would still be no, I believe he was mahasangha not Theravadin.

Shantideva was a Madhyamika and one of the first great systematizers of the Mahayana.

but he seems to shred the bolded concepts pretty thoroughly.

Sure, however, he is not addressing the Theravada.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.